On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Gregh wrote:

> > >>  - run on Windows,
> > >> Oops, I see your problem.  No self-respecting network operator runs and
> > >> M$W boxen as an MTA, so Templin is an imposter/troll.
> > >
> > > This isnt true, the majority run Windows (at least thats what I see in
> > > various meetings and from the user-agent headers)
> >
> > I'm not arguing with your conclusion, but your reasoning is a little broken.
> > Only a small proportion of the nanog list membership attend meetings, and
> > those that do don't necessarily provide a representative distribution (of
> > any kind).
> >
> > Similarly, the user-agent headers you see are from people on nanog-post; I
> > am told the nanog list is much bigger.
> 
> You know, I wish I had Nanog posting rights. This whole thing is very SIMPLY
> taken care of yet so many "professionals" are making a D in a B cup about
> it!
> 
> You can write/buy/install any flavour of OS you like with a very simple rule
> in it to delete "out of office" messages from the server OR just blackban
> that particular email address for "X" number of days.
> 
> Why is the obvious always the thing most people argue about?

That wont work - how do you sort the bad ooo's from the legitimate ones. The 
problem is on the sending side not the receiving and a quick hack isnt going to 
fix anything but you may annoy a few people on the false positives you drop..

And any half decent IT manager isnt going to allow a hack into a system, they 
are going to require a proper solution.

Steve

Reply via email to